Method of proving causation between defoliants and the current disease that had contacted in Vietnam War;

Unless it is proved that the causal link between defoliant and the present disease that had been contacted in Vietnam War in the past 20 years is difficult to prove, it is reasonable to view the horses of the veteran as a disease due to defoliants unless it is proved that the Vietnam War veteran currently suffers from the horses, and that it is not deemed actual aftereffects of defoliants under each subparagraph of Article 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Medical Treatment, etc. of Patients with Actual aftereffects of defoliants.

Articles 2 and 3 of the Act on the Medical Treatment, etc. of Patients suffering from Actual aftereffects of defoliants; Article 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Medical Treatment, etc. of Patients suffering from Actual aftereffects of defoliants; Article 26

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff (Attorney Park Jong-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Head of Suwon Veterans Branch Office

1. The defendant's refusal to recognize patients suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants against the plaintiff on May 16, 1994 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

From October 18, 1969 to February 10, 1971, the Plaintiff entered the Navy and was discharged from Vietnam, and the Plaintiff applied for the determination and registration of patients suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants pursuant to the Act on the Medical Treatment, etc. for Patients suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants (amended by Act No. 4942 of Jan. 5, 1995; hereinafter the same shall apply) on the ground that the Plaintiff suffered from diseases such as magal disorder, skin infection, and urology in Vietnam due to defoliants during the Vietnam War, and applied for the determination and registration of patients suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants on December 2, 1968. However, on May 16, 1994, the Defendant recognized only urology among the above diseases alleged by the Plaintiff, and determined the Plaintiff as patients suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants, and refused to recognize them as patients suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants (hereinafter in this case). There is no dispute between the parties to the instant disposition, or it can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of oral argument.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff asserted that, at the time of the instant disposition, the instant disposition was unlawful to the effect that the Defendant refused to recognize the Plaintiff as a patient suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants, even though there was a mathal disease that is defined as a disease subject to recognition of patients suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants.

B. Relevant provisions

Article 2 subparag. 2 and 3 of the Act defines those suffering from defoliants as patients suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants and those suffering from defoliants as patients, and those suffering from defoliants as patients suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants, and those who were determined and registered pursuant to Article 4 of the Act as patients suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants and those who were determined and registered as patients suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants under the Military Service Act or the Military Personnel Management Act; Article 6 of the Act provides for compensation or medical care under the Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State to the extent of their disabilities; Article 8 of the Act provides that those who were determined and registered as patients suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants shall be subject to the application of the Act; Article 4 of the Act provides that the standards for medical treatment of those suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants and other diseases shall be determined based on the results of an epidemiological investigation conducted between the Vietnam War and those suffering from actual aftereffects of defoliants and Article 84 of the Act.

(c) Markets:

Therefore, in full view of the statement of No. 3 and the purport of the oral argument as to this case, the plaintiff can recognize the fact that there was a mathal disease other than urine disease at the time of the disposition in this case, and there is no evidence contrary to the above recognition, and there is no other evidence against this. As recognized above, the plaintiff is the Vietnam War veteran, and as long as the Enforcement Decree is suffering from mathal disease which is one of the diseases defined as actual aftereffects of defoliants as the disease subject to recognition of actual aftereffects of defoliants, so long as it is difficult to prove the causal relationship between defoliants and the present disease as a Vietnam War veteran, it is hard to see that the above mathal disease of the plaintiff was unlawful since it was not proved that the above mathal disease was a disease as stipulated in the proviso of Article 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act. Thus, the plaintiff's mathal disease of the above mathal disease of this case. Thus, it is reasonable to recognize that the plaintiff's mathal disease of this case was an actual aftereffects of defoliants.

3. Conclusion

Thus, since the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the revocation of the disposition of this case is justified, it is accepted, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Judge)